tOSU and UM discussion

[ellobo]

BTW...rewatching the highlights of 2002...in OT PSU misses a FG...Michigan is called offsides...PSU re-kicks and makes it...I'm sure if it had been the opposite...as in the refs gave Michigan a second chance at a FG after missing one...you guys would have claimed it was part of the conspiracy.

 

[AWS1022]

On 4 and 5...

4) It happened. I will provide a link to the play at the end of this post. But the bigger point is "you don't remember." You where at your own 17, it was 3 and 12 and if there was replay it is likely overturned, PSU punts and Michigan gets the ball back with likely great field position and plenty of time. If Michigan doesn't make the plays it did in OT (which aren't in dispute) the conversation about the 2002 game is about how the refs screwed MICHIGAN. But I guess your biased and selective memory has blocked it out because it doesn't support your agenda.

5) There's no "maybe." If they called the first play (that went against Michigan) differently (imo and the experts' opinion it was called incorrectly) then the drive is over: thus plays that happened later in that drive would never have happened. If you don't understand that then the tin foil wrapped around your head is thicker than I thought...sorry to be harsh but it is simple logic.

btw...start at the 22 minute mark of the linked video...my favorite part is the announcers reaction when they see the replay...not a catch...drive over

View embedded media

Sorry, that was nothing compared to some of the sh!t calls that went against Penn State over the years. At least it was close enough to be considered a catch. And if you think it was that obvious, then your tin foil is a little tight as well. That is what we call a questionable call, not a blatantly obvious horrible call. And I wish our biggest complaint was a questionable call in a game we won. That would be nice.

 

[gslachta]

I've read many times on this platform, that there is a bias, amongst Delaney and other conference leaders in favor of Ohio State and Michigan. I understand the history the Big Ten etc etc. But can anyone point out specific actions, aside of the sanction issues, by these people which confirms the bias?

Are you including officiating which falls under the responsibility of Delaney? If so I'll start listing purposely bad calls that impacted on Penn State- Michigan games. If you include Ohio State he did allow them to apologize for stealing the game so maybe he wasn't biased. Right!

 

[gslachta]

There was a pretty comprehensive article from Onward State a few years ago detailing B1G Official Dave Witvoet's history of screwing Penn State (including in our game against Alabama, Michigan in 2014, and several others), but it's since been taken down. Witovet is a Michigan native and has reffed nearly all our games against Michigan. There have been other articles and instances - Lehman's TD against Nebraska, three huge errors in the OSU game, Jesse James 'offsides' on an onside kick recovery against Michigan, and a ref flat out telling McGloin 'you're lucky to be playing'. These are just in the last two years. Go back to Michigan getting time on the clock, heel/toe, and another huge gaff against OSU some years back when their TE wasn't close to catching the ball and it was ruled a catch. Curiously enough, most of our ref issues are with OSU and Michigan.

Not a TD according to B1G Refs:

Offsides according to B1G Refs:

An interception according to B1G refs; and 'plenty of time on the clock' for a FG attempt:

Don't forget Tony Johnson's catch out of bounds-not that would have put us in field goal range and in all likelihood would not have gone into overtime. The replays show Johnson catching the ball, no bobble, 1 yard on the field and if I'm not mistaken both feet in.I once had dinner (a golf tournament) with a Michigan guy who felt the Wolverines never got a call or break against the Lions. Well, I surely don't agree.

 

[ellobo]

Sorry, that was nothing compared to some of the sh!t calls that went against Penn State over the years. At least it was close enough to be considered a catch. And if you think it was that obvious, then your tin foil is a little tight as well. That is what we call a questionable call, not a blatantly obvious horrible call. And I wish our biggest complaint was a questionable call in a game we won. That would be nice.

So...I have given you proof that in the 2002 game that if the refs make a different call on one that went PSU's way another call that went against PSU on a play that would have never happened if the first call (again in PSU's favor) had been called properly...so now you can't argue the 2002 game

It has also been established that under the rules, as they stood in 2005, the call on the Avant catch was not incorrect. I will give you that I don't know why 2 seconds were put back either but there is no argument to say why it shouldn't be. It wasn't explained. In addition, in the prior drive Joe Pa had time put back on which I don't remember it being explained either. I'm pretty sure in both cases it wasn't just because the coaches asked. So 2005 is out also.

So which games, seeing 2002 and 2005 are out. are the basis of your theory that the refs are out to get PSU in regards to Michigan vs. PSU?

 

[ellobo]

Don't forget Tony Johnson's catch out of bounds-not that would have put us in field goal range and in all likelihood would not have gone into overtime. The replays show Johnson catching the ball, no bobble, 1 yard on the field and if I'm not mistaken both feet in.I once had dinner (a golf tournament) with a Michigan guy who felt the Wolverines never got a call or break against the Lions. Well, I surely don't agree.

I do think that was the wrong call...however, just plays before that there was a call on a 3 and 12 (while PSU was on it's own 17) that was wrong and extended that drive (aka went in PSU's favor and likely overturned if there was replay). Thus, your point is moot as PSU would have punted the ball plays before likely giving Michigan good field position with plenty of time to win in regulation.

I linked the play above in another post...as per your Michigan buddy who thinks we never get a break...well he is wrong...but I get the same vibe when reading certain posters on this board...it's called selective memory...

 

[AWS1022]

So...I have given you proof that in the 2002 game that if the refs make a different call on one that went PSU's way another call that went against PSU on a play that would have never happened if the first call (again in PSU's favor) had been called properly...so now you can't argue the 2002 game

It has also been established that under the rules, as they stood in 2005, the call on the Avant catch was not incorrect. I will give you that I don't know why 2 seconds were put back either but there is no argument to say why it shouldn't be. It wasn't explained. In addition, in the prior drive Joe Pa had time put back on which I don't remember it being explained either. I'm pretty sure in both cases it wasn't just because the coaches asked. So 2005 is out also.

So which games, seeing 2002 and 2005 are out. are the basis of your theory that the refs are out to get PSU in regards to Michigan vs. PSU?

So, you're justifying a blatantly bad call later in the game by bringing up a questionable call earlier in the game. Maybe the ref that made the call on Johnson was trying to even things up, which is worse than just missing a call. Since you are dissecting these two games in such great detail to show no bias, I notice you conveniently left out the discrepancy in penalty calls, in who's favor? What a surprise, Michigan's. You would be much better off to point to ANY of the other games PSU and UM played and stay away from the 02 and 05 games...those two games weaken your argument badly.

 

[ellobo]

So, you're justifying a blatantly bad call later in the game by bringing up a questionable call earlier in the game. Maybe the ref that made the call on Johnson was trying to even things up, which is worse than just missing a call. Since you are dissecting these two games in such great detail to show no bias, I notice you conveniently left out the discrepancy in penalty calls, in who's favor? What a surprise, Michigan's. You would be much better off to point to ANY of the other games PSU and UM played and stay away from the 02 and 05 games...those two games weaken your argument badly.

I didn't get past your first sentence...it was the same drive on both calls...same drive...both were late in the game and ticks on the clock apart...did you watch the game or do you just read the board and mimic what others say?

 

[AWS1022]

I didn't get past your first sentence...it was the same drive on both calls...same drive...both were late in the game and ticks on the clock apart...did you watch the game or do you just read the board and mimic what others say?

What difference does it make that it was the same drive? You're saying the call on Johnson is excusable because the call earlier was bad. So make up calls are perfectly okay in your book. I get it. And you still haven't addressed the number of penalty calls. If you want to drill down, you need to drill all the way down.

 

[ellobo]

What difference does it make that it was the same drive? You're saying the call on Johnson is excusable because the call earlier was bad. So make up calls are perfectly okay in your book. I get it. And you still haven't addressed the number of penalty calls. If you want to drill down, you need to drill all the way down.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that anyone saying this stuff doesn't even out (over time) is likely delusion. There is no conspiracy. The refs in the B10 are pretty bad and if you have homer blinders on it is probably easy (but still wrong) to make a claim that your team keeps getting screwed more than others. But if you take those homer blinders off that is not the case at all because every school gets screwed by the refs. However, some fans complain less about it because their team overcomes the refs (more often than not) and wins many of the games they got screwed by the refs. That is my point.

And FWIW...from the actual in real time film the call against Michigan looks more obviously wrong than the one against PSU...in real time Johnson looks to have dropped the ball on the 1st one and looks out of bounds on the second...in slow mo it looks like they got both calls wrong...it happens

 

[AWS1022]

I didn't get past your first sentence...it was the same drive on both calls...same drive...both were late in the game and ticks on the clock apart...did you watch the game or do you just read the board and mimic what others say?

Using your logic...yes, Colorado got a fifth down to score a game winning TD, but two plays before Missouri got away with a defensive hold that would have given Colorado an extra down, so it's okay. Let's keep it going...yes, the umpire called a runner out even though the first baseman's foot was a foot off the bag, but the inning before the home ump called a third strike that was three inches outside, so it's okay. Yes, the Soviets got two extra chances after the game was officially over against the U.S., but on the United States' winning basket, the guy should have been called for traveling, so it's okay.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that anyone saying this stuff doesn't even out (over time) is likely delusion. There is no conspiracy. The refs in the B10 are pretty bad and if you have homer blinders on it is probably easy (but still wrong) to make a claim that your team keeps getting screwed more than others. But if you take those homer blinders off that is not the case at all because every school gets screwed by the refs. However, some fans complain less about it because their team overcomes the refs (more often than not) and wins many of the games they got screwed by the refs. That is my point.

And FWIW...from the actual in real time film the call against Michigan looks more obviously wrong than the one against PSU...in real time Johnson looks to have dropped the ball on the 1st one and looks out of bounds on the second...in slow mo it looks like they got both calls wrong...it happens

You obviously have not read my countless posts on this and other threads...I never said there was a conspiracy. There's a difference between a conspiracy and certain refs having a bias. And the refs in every conference are pretty bad, they're not full time and it shows. And I realize bad calls happen, but if you don't think they have been integral in more PSU games, then you have the blinders on. I've asked and asked for one situation where a blatantly bad call went against OSU or UM and helped PSU win a game. Penn State has overcome a lot of questionable calls against teams and won the game, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about calls that are still discussed 10 years later that cost OSU or UM a game against Penn State. When I get an answer to that, I will buy the it's just bad officiating party line. Until then, I feel very confident that certain officials have biases against Penn State. I'm also certain if ND joined the Big, these same officials would have even more of a bias against ND. No one cares when a little dog comes into their yard, but when it's a big dog, they fight back.

 

[ellobo]

Using your logic...yes, Colorado got a fifth down to score a game winning TD, but two plays before Missouri got away with a defensive hold that would have given Colorado an extra down, so it's okay. Let's keep it going...yes, the umpire called a runner out even though the first baseman's foot was a foot off the bag, but the inning before the home ump called a third strike that was three inches outside, so it's okay. Yes, the Soviets got two extra chances after the game was officially over against the U.S., but on the United States' winning basket, the guy should have been called for traveling, so it's okay.


You obviously have not read my countless posts on this and other threads...I never said there was a conspiracy. There's a difference between a conspiracy and certain refs having a bias. And the refs in every conference are pretty bad, they're not full time and it shows. And I realize bad calls happen, but if you don't think they have been integral in more PSU games, then you have the blinders on. I've asked and asked for one situation where a blatantly bad call went against OSU or UM and helped PSU win a game. Penn State has overcome a lot of questionable calls against teams and won the game, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about calls that are still discussed 10 years later that cost OSU or UM a game against Penn State. When I get an answer to that, I will buy the it's just bad officiating party line. Until then, I feel very confident that certain officials have biases against Penn State. I'm also certain if ND joined the Big, these same officials would have even more of a bias against ND. No one cares when a little dog comes into their yard, but when it's a big dog, they fight back.

-In the 1979 Rose Bowl Charles White (of USC) scores a phantom TD which he even admits he fumbled the ball before getting in the endzone. A mixed crew of conference officials, the P10 officials call it correctly but the B10 officials overturn them calling it a TD. Michigan loses the game (by a TD) and thus the National Championship as we were undefeated going into the game.

-In 1990 Michigan went into the MSU game ranked #1 in the country. Late in the game Michigan scores to make it 28-27. Michigan goes for two. Desmond Howard is blatantly interfered with (literally tripped) as the ball comes his way. It's not called and Michigan loses it's #1 ranking and hopes of the NC.

-In 2001 Michigan comes in ranked #6. We lead with seconds on the clock with Sparty driving. After a tackle inbounds Sparty runs to the line to kill the clock. Time appears to run out but the clock operator stops it at 1 second. MSU wins on the last play knocking Michigan out of NC contention. The time keeper (Bob Stelin) is now known as "Spartan Bob" (you can google it) and it led to a B10 policy change on home teams supplying their own clock guy.

-2006...Michigan vs. OSU...#1 vs. #2...winner plays in the BCS NCG. Third down, with 6+ minutes left with Michigan down 4, and tOSU throws an incomplete pass which would give the ball back to Michigan with a chance to take the lead. But, Michigan gets called for a personal foul on the QB because he was "going out of bounds" (one foot was about to land but hadn't yet and the tackler goes into his tackle while the ball is still in the QB's hand) and though he leads with his shoulder there ends up being helmet to helmet contact. tOSU then essentially ices the game with a TD, Michigan loses and doesn't make the BCS NCG.

So you tell me...should I now think that there is a bias against Michigan? If so I invite you to go with me to every single B10 board to ask them if they never had bad or questionable calls against them (by B10 refs) that cost them big...by your stance I guess we should expect we are the only two schools that ever got screwed...

 

[AWS1022]

-In the 1979 Rose Bowl Charles White (of USC) scores a phantom TD which he even admits he fumbled the ball before getting in the endzone. A mixed crew of conference officials, the P10 officials call it correctly but the B10 officials overturn them calling it a TD. Michigan loses the game (by a TD) and thus the National Championship as we were undefeated going into the game.

-In 1990 Michigan went into the MSU game ranked #1 in the country. Late in the game Michigan scores to make it 28-27. Michigan goes for two. Desmond Howard is blatantly interfered with (literally tripped) as the ball comes his way. It's not called and Michigan loses it's #1 ranking and hopes of the NC.

-In 2001 Michigan comes in ranked #6. We lead with seconds on the clock with Sparty driving. After a tackle inbounds Sparty runs to the line to kill the clock. Time appears to run out but the clock operator stops it at 1 second. MSU wins on the last play knocking Michigan out of NC contention. The time keeper (Bob Stelin) is now known as "Spartan Bob" (you can google it) and it led to a B10 policy change on home teams supplying their own clock guy.

-2006...Michigan vs. OSU...#1 vs. #2...winner plays in the BCS NCG. Third down, with 6+ minutes left with Michigan down 4, and tOSU throws an incomplete pass which would give the ball back to Michigan with a chance to take the lead. But, Michigan gets called for a personal foul on the QB because he was "going out of bounds" (one foot was about to land but hadn't yet and the tackler goes into his tackle while the ball is still in the QB's hand) and though he leads with his shoulder there ends up being helmet to helmet contact. tOSU then essentially ices the game with a TD, Michigan loses and doesn't make the BCS NCG.

So you tell me...should I now think that there is a bias against Michigan? If so I invite you to go with me to every single B10 board to ask them if they never had bad or questionable calls against them (by B10 refs) that cost them big...by your stance I guess we should expect we are the only two schools that ever got screwed...

All great examples, still haven't come up with one that caused PSU to win a game. I'm sure if we went to the other boards, many of the bad calls that went against them were when they were playing OSU or Michigan. That's a minefield you probably shouldn't walk through. I also think if we went on the other Big team boards and asked them which two teams this conference favors, they would say OSU and Michigan.

 

[ellobo]

All great examples, still haven't come up with one that caused PSU to win a game. I'm sure if we went to the other boards, many of the bad calls that went against them were when they were playing OSU or Michigan. That's a minefield you probably shouldn't walk through. I also think if we went on the other Big team boards and asked them which two teams this conference favors, they would say OSU and Michigan.

More guessing on your part and nothing close to real facts...and fwiw...I can't think of a single call that caused Michigan to win a game. I really can't...maybe a couple that if we didn't get the call we wouldn't have made the plays later to win it.

 

[chrisrn1965]

I've read many times on this platform, that there is a bias, amongst Delaney and other conference leaders in favor of Ohio State and Michigan. I understand the history the Big Ten etc etc. But can anyone point out specific actions, aside of the sanction issues, by these people which confirms the bias?

I find it fascinating how many Michigan and Ohio State trolls feel the need to defend the BIG in this thread. Why do you care would PSU people think? Don't you have your own boards?

 

[john4psu]

In any of your instances any Sparty or Ohio State biased ref would do anything to not have Michigan fare well no matter who the opponent was. The call in '06 someone had to lose that game and it allowed Ohio State to remain #1 and go to the MNC game.

QUOTE="ellobo, post: 1203947, member: 11134"]-In the 1979 Rose Bowl Charles White (of USC) scores a phantom TD which he even admits he fumbled the ball before getting in the endzone. A mixed crew of conference officials, the P10 officials call it correctly but the B10 officials overturn them calling it a TD. Michigan loses the game (by a TD) and thus the National Championship as we were undefeated going into the game.

Were the refs from Ohio? I don't see a ref from Ohio giving Michigan a call no matter who they play.

-In 1990 Michigan went into the MSU game ranked #1 in the country. Late in the game Michigan scores to make it 28-27. Michigan goes for two. Desmond Howard is blatantly interfered with (literally tripped) as the ball comes his way. It's not called and Michigan loses it's #1 ranking and hopes of the NC.

Spartan alums? Where were the refs from? Ohio perhaps?

-In 2001 Michigan comes in ranked #6. We lead with seconds on the clock with Sparty driving. After a tackle inbounds Sparty runs to the line to kill the clock. Time appears to run out but the clock operator stops it at 1 second. MSU wins on the last play knocking Michigan out of NC contention. The time keeper (Bob Stelin) is now known as "Spartan Bob" (you can google it) and it led to a B10 policy change on home teams supplying their own clock guy.

In-state rivalry. Sparty doesn't want UM to succeed. Nor would anyone from Ohio.

-2006...Michigan vs. OSU...#1 vs. #2...winner plays in the BCS NCG. Third down, with 6+ minutes left with Michigan down 4, and tOSU throws an incomplete pass which would give the ball back to Michigan with a chance to take the lead. But, Michigan gets called for a personal foul on the QB because he was "going out of bounds" (one foot was about to land but hadn't yet and the tackler goes into his tackle while the ball is still in the QB's hand) and though he leads with his shoulder there ends up being helmet to helmet contact. tOSU then essentially ices the game with a TD, Michigan loses and doesn't make the BCS NCG.

Yes but Ohio State does hanging on to #1 ranking. Someone had to lose that game.

So you tell me...should I now think that there is a bias against Michigan? If so I invite you to go with me to every single B10 board to ask them if they never had bad or questionable calls against them (by B10 refs) that cost them big...by your stance I guess we should expect we are the only two schools that ever got screwed...[/QUOTE]

 

[Mudge1026]

The Penn State fanbase believing the BIG has a "conspiracy" against PSU is a complete "strawman"' argument. There is a "bias" against Penn State at least when it comes to officiating games, PSU vs OSU, PSU vs Mich. To deny this only shows an agenda by opposing teams fans'. This reminds me of the arguments between Dems, Media and Republicans. The Media insists there is no conspiracy yet Republicans never said there was. Republicans say it is Media "bias" of which there is little doubt. The one getting screwed always knows, and Penn State's been screwed repeatedly.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

I agree that it is not a conference wide conspiracy. And the handful of plays (10 or so) is less than 0.5% which is statistically possible and is certainly way more statistically possible than the 0.0% that went PSU's way. And the average margin of victory means nothing because as you know the course of games is changed by single plays and single bad calls. I don't think there's anyone arguing that OSU is not a superior program, so they certainly don't need the extra help. The fact that these situations do not result in punitive action or concrete changes naturally leads to thoughts of a conspiracy.

"Bias" does not required "conspiracy" in any way. In fact, it is scientifically provable that every individual is "biased". The problem in the b1g shiz-hole is that all "traditional b1g shiz-hole" types (look no further than the name of the conference - which schools does the term "big ten" refer to?) hold the same negative "biases" toward PSU because they are not a "traditional big ten school", nor are they even a Midwestern school - PSU has an "Eastern Tradition" as proven by THIS LISTING of their most common opponents by games played prior to joining the b1g Shiz-hole (and I even shortened it to just the post WWII period 1950-1992 so it would be reflective of who PSU was playing directly before entering the Shiz-hole of small-minded, pathetically biased turds. 1. ASWP (43 games, 29-12-2), 2. WVU (43 games, 37-5-1), 3. Syracuse (41 games, 28-13 - note, this includes the "glory years" of Syracuse, Jim Brown, Ernie Banks, Floyd Little, Larry Csonka...), 4. Maryland (30 games, 28-1-1), 5. Army (21 games, 12-9), 6. BC (20 games, 18-2), 7. Rutgers (20 games, 19-1), 8. Temple (19 games, 18-0-1), 9. NC State (15 games, 13-2), 10. Navy (13 games, 9-4), 11. Alabama (13 games, 5-8), 12. Notre Dame (13 games, 8-5), 13. Miami-Fl (11 games, 6-5), 14. Holy Cross (9 games, 9-0) and 15. UNL (9 games, 4-5).

How about the notion that PSU couldn't compete against the b1g 2 of the Shiz-hole prior to 1993 that a lot of their joke fans like to believe - prior to 1992 PSU was 6-2 against tO$U all-time and had never played scUM.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

By their nature, approved rulings are in the rulebook to provide clarification on certain football game situations. The football rulebook simply cannot anticipate anything and everything.

Do you really think it's a complete coincidence that the approved ruling FIRST showed up in the NCAA rulebook in 2007?

The rulebook was unclear in 2005. If the ref ruled Avant OOB, U-M fans would have no beef either. NEITHER PSU or U-M has a beef in this situation.

Your full of $hit as usual - the wording of the rules changes every year and they list a summary of changes in wording and completely new rules in the front of the rulebook EVERY year. In regards to the REQUIREMENT that your ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING stay completely in-bounds (Both Feet in the NFL), the rule has never varied -- again, your full of $hit as per usual. If any part of your FIRST FOOT LANDING goes out-of-bounds during the act of "landing" (regardless of whether it is a heel-toe motion of running forwards, toe-heel action from moving backwards, your first foot coming back to the playing surface from jumping, etc.... the REQUIREMENT is that your entire first foot stay completely in-bounds during the entire "landing" process and it has ALWAYS been the requirement when the receiver is landing FOOT FIRST you blithering moron!).

What changed in the Rule (and changed in the NFL Rule as well) were situations where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT landed first. In those situations, it only mattered where the FIRST CONTACT of that body part was and whether that "FIRST POINT OF CONTACT" was first in-bounds even if portions of the body subsequently went out-of bounds (for instance, a players elbow is the first point of contact with the ground after leaving the ground to catch a pass, but after the elbow strikes, the remainder of the forearm SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds....or a knee hits in-bounds, but the upper-body SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds, etc....) - in these situations, where a NON-FOOT body part makes FIRST CONTACT in-bounds and then any portion of the body SUBSEQUENTLY goes out-of-bounds, it is deemed a catch (hence the saying that many NFL announcers used after the change - "One knee = 2 feet" or "One Elbow = 2 Feet").

The rule was quite clear that the STANDARD had not changed relative to what it ALWAYS has been when the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST!!! Again, in this situation where the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST, the REQUIREMENT was what it ALWAYS HAD BEEN - specifically, the RECEIVER'S FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay INSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY through the entire "first step" and the rule goes on to explain that a "dragging of the foot" without a step (e.g., a "toe drag") is considered a "second step".

In the case being discussed, Avant without question was "backpedaling" and landing upon the ground FEET FIRST relative to the CLEAR strictures of the rule. The rule clearly states that the entire "FIRST STEP" of the FIRST FOOT LANDING is the determining factor (e.g., Avant did not "drag" his foot while maintaining the position it landed in-bounds in - e.g., a heel or toe drag - if he had a "drag" counts as a "second step", but contrary to your bull$hit claims, Avant undeniably was "backpedaling" where he was taking STEPS where his toe would hit first followed by his heel and the rule is definitive in situations where the FOOT is the first body part landing that the entire FOOT and STEP must stay in-bounds and the rule ALWAYS has read that way in regards to FOOT FIRST LANDINGS!!!

In your typical horse$hit fashion, you are attempting to reference language which was added to the rule to clarify situations where a BODY PART OTHER THAN THE FOOT MADE FIRST CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AFTER THE RECEIVER LEFT THE GROUND AND CAUGHT THE BALL WHILE OFF THE GROUND! This is not the situation that APPLIED to Avant who was clearly moving backwards ON HIS FEET and the same rule that applies when a receiver is running forward ON HIS FEET apply to the situation -- namely the requirement that the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP remain ENTIRELY within the field of play often also termed "IN BOUNDS" and if any part of the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP contact out-of-bounds stripe, the pass is INCOMPLETE and the rule is quite unequivocal, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, about these FACTS that pertain to the ACTUAL SITUATION, not your made up bull$hit you imbecile!

 

[thetruth82]

Your full of $hit as usual - the wording of the rules changes every year and they list a summary of changes in wording and completely new rules in the front of the rulebook EVERY year. In regards to the REQUIREMENT that your ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING stay completely in-bounds (Both Feet in the NFL), the rule has never varied -- again, your full of $hit as per usual. If any part of your FIRST FOOT LANDING goes out-of-bounds during the act of "landing" (regardless of whether it is a heel-toe motion of running forwards, toe-heel action from moving backwards, your first foot coming back to the playing surface from jumping, etc.... the REQUIREMENT is that your entire first foot stay completely in-bounds during the entire "landing" process and it has ALWAYS been the requirement when the receiver is landing FOOT FIRST you blithering moron!).

What changed in the Rule (and changed in the NFL Rule as well) were situations where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT landed first. In those situations, it only mattered where the FIRST CONTACT of that body part was and whether that "FIRST POINT OF CONTACT" was first in-bounds even if portions of the body subsequently went out-of bounds (for instance, a players elbow is the first point of contact with the ground after leaving the ground to catch a pass, but after the elbow strikes, the remainder of the forearm SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds....or a knee hits in-bounds, but the upper-body SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds, etc....) - in these situations, where a NON-FOOT body part makes FIRST CONTACT in-bounds and then any portion of the body SUBSEQUENTLY goes out-of-bounds, it is deemed a catch (hence the saying that many NFL announcers used after the change - "One knee = 2 feet" or "One Elbow = 2 Feet").

The rule was quite clear that the STANDARD had not changed relative to what it ALWAYS has been when the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST!!! Again, in this situation where the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST, the REQUIREMENT was what it ALWAYS HAD BEEN - specifically, the RECEIVER'S FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay INSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY through the entire "first step" and the rule goes on to explain that a "dragging of the foot" without a step (e.g., a "toe drag") is considered a "second step".

In the case being discussed, Avant without question was "backpedaling" and landing upon the ground FEET FIRST relative to the CLEAR strictures of the rule. The rule clearly states that the entire "FIRST STEP" of the FIRST FOOT LANDING is the determining factor (e.g., Avant did not "drag" his foot while maintaining the position it landed in-bounds in - e.g., a heel or toe drag - if he had a "drag" counts as a "second step", but contrary to your bull$hit claims, Avant undeniably was "backpedaling" where he was taking STEPS where his toe would hit first followed by his heel and the rule is definitive in situations where the FOOT is the first body part landing that the entire FOOT and STEP must stay in-bounds and the rule ALWAYS has read that way in regards to FOOT FIRST LANDINGS!!!

In your typical horse$hit fashion, you are attempting to reference language which was added to the rule to clarify situations where a BODY PART OTHER THAN THE FOOT MADE FIRST CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AFTER THE RECEIVER LEFT THE GROUND AND CAUGHT THE BALL WHILE OFF THE GROUND! This is not the situation that APPLIED to Avant who was clearly moving backwards ON HIS FEET and the same rule that applies when a receiver is running forward ON HIS FEET apply to the situation -- namely the requirement that the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP remain ENTIRELY within the field of play often also termed "IN BOUNDS" and if any part of the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP contact out-of-bounds stripe, the pass is INCOMPLETE and the rule is quite unequivocal, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, about these FACTS that pertain to the ACTUAL SITUATION, not your made up bull$hit you imbecile!

You lost a game over 10 years ago where even PSU fans and writers have said the call could have went either way. Please stop with the delusion Penn State could have one the game if they made plays which they did not so they lost simple as that

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You lost a game over 10 years ago where even PSU fans and writers have said the call could have went either way. Please stop with the delusion Penn State could have one the game if they made plays which they did not so they lost simple as that

Your full of $hit troll, there is absolutely NO QUESTION as to the interpretation of the "ONE FOOT Rule" in college and there NEVER HAS BEEN dope except to you moronic scUM b1g Shiz-hole tools (just like the call in the '93 Michigan game that claimed a ball which went 15 yards backwards was not a "live ball" and fumble, but was instead an "incomplete pass" which even if it were true, which it wasn't - it was a fumble - would have STILL BEEN A LIVE BALL UNDER THE RULES as a backward pass is LIVE). The "NCAA Football Rule" in question had NOT BEEN CHANGED regarding situations where the first contact with the ground by the receiver was with the feet - the "Rule" for such situations was the same as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, the FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay entirely in-bounds including the ENTIRE FIRST STEP! All of the elements are called out in the rule and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Really pathetic that you and your fellow scUM troll who don't know jack $hit about "football" or "football rules" apparently are attempting to justify and rationalize CLEAR CHEATING by referencing a change in the language to the rule which SPECIFICALLY says it only applies to NON-FOOT FIRST LANDINGS where a part of the body OTHER THAN WHEN THE FOOT LANDS FIRST. The rule quite clearly states that situations where the feet land first, the rule remains the same as it ALWAYS WAS AND STILL IS you blithering scUM, b1g Shiz-hole douche-bag!

Since you're so ignorant of the college "ONE FOOT IN" rule (2 feet in the NFL), I'll go over the specifics for you ignorant scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole morons once again. The rule has ALWAYS stated that a receiver must keep his ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING in-bounds and the rule specifies that the FIRST FOOT LANDING INCLUDES THE ENTIRE "FIRST STEP" and these strictures within the rule apply to ALL CASES where the receiver lands on a FEET OR FOOT FIRST BASIS. The play in question had NOTHING TO DO WITH the modification to the language of the rule dealing with NON-FOOT-FIRST landings where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT makes FIRST CONTACT with the ground. Hope that was helpful as to how the way the NCAA Football Rules ACTUALLY read scUM, b1g Shiz-hole moron.

 

[Nosoj]

Your full of $hit troll, there is absolutely NO QUESTION as to the interpretation of the "ONE FOOT Rule" in college and there NEVER HAS BEEN dope except to you moronic scUM b1g Shiz-hole tools (just like the call in the '93 Michigan game that claimed a ball which went 15 yards backwards was not a "live ball" and fumble, but was instead an "incomplete pass" which even if it were true, which it wasn't - it was a fumble - would have STILL BEEN A LIVE BALL UNDER THE RULES as a backward pass is LIVE). The "NCAA Football Rule" in question had NOT BEEN CHANGED regarding situations where the first contact with the ground by the receiver was with the feet - the "Rule" for such situations was the same as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, the FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay entirely in-bounds including the ENTIRE FIRST STEP! All of the elements are called out in the rule and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Really pathetic that you and your fellow scUM troll who don't know jack $hit about "football" or "football rules" apparently are attempting to justify and rationalize CLEAR CHEATING by referencing a change in the language to the rule which SPECIFICALLY says it only applies to NON-FOOT FIRST LANDINGS where a part of the body OTHER THAN WHEN THE FOOT LANDS FIRST. The rule quite clearly states that situations where the feet land first, the rule remains the same as it ALWAYS WAS AND STILL IS you blithering scUM, b1g Shiz-hole douche-bag!

Since your so ignorant of the college "ONE FOOT IN" rule (2 feet in the NFL), I'll go over the specifics for you ignorant scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole morons once again. The rule has ALWAYS stated that a receiver must keep his ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING in-bounds and the rule specifies that the FIRST FOOT LANDING INCLUDES THE ENTIRE "FIRST STEP" and these strictures within the rule apply to ALL CASES where the receiver lands on a FEET OR FOOT FIRST BASIS. The play in question had NOTHING TO DO WITH the modification to the language of the rule dealing with NON-FOOT-FIRST landings where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT makes FIRST CONTACT with the ground. Hope that was helpful as to how the way the NCAA Football Rules ACTUALLY read scUM, b1g Shiz-hole moron.

 

[thetruth82]

Your full of $hit troll, there is absolutely NO QUESTION as to the interpretation of the "ONE FOOT Rule" in college and there NEVER HAS BEEN dope except to you moronic scUM b1g Shiz-hole tools (just like the call in the '93 Michigan game that claimed a ball which went 15 yards backwards was not a "live ball" and fumble, but was instead an "incomplete pass" which even if it were true, which it wasn't - it was a fumble - would have STILL BEEN A LIVE BALL UNDER THE RULES as a backward pass is LIVE). The "NCAA Football Rule" in question had NOT BEEN CHANGED regarding situations where the first contact with the ground by the receiver was with the feet - the "Rule" for such situations was the same as it ALWAYS HAS BEEN, the FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay entirely in-bounds including the ENTIRE FIRST STEP! All of the elements are called out in the rule and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Really pathetic that you and your fellow scUM troll who don't know jack $hit about "football" or "football rules" apparently are attempting to justify and rationalize CLEAR CHEATING by referencing a change in the language to the rule which SPECIFICALLY says it only applies to NON-FOOT FIRST LANDINGS where a part of the body OTHER THAN WHEN THE FOOT LANDS FIRST. The rule quite clearly states that situations where the feet land first, the rule remains the same as it ALWAYS WAS AND STILL IS you blithering scUM, b1g Shiz-hole douche-bag!

Since your so ignorant of the college "ONE FOOT IN" rule (2 feet in the NFL), I'll go over the specifics for you ignorant scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole morons once again. The rule has ALWAYS stated that a receiver must keep his ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING in-bounds and the rule specifies that the FIRST FOOT LANDING INCLUDES THE ENTIRE "FIRST STEP" and these strictures within the rule apply to ALL CASES where the receiver lands on a FEET OR FOOT FIRST BASIS. The play in question had NOTHING TO DO WITH the modification to the language of the rule dealing with NON-FOOT-FIRST landings where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT makes FIRST CONTACT with the ground. Hope that was helpful as to how the way the NCAA Football Rules ACTUALLY read scUM, b1g Shiz-hole moron.

Writing in all caps and hurling insults like a child does not change the fact that Penn State didn't make the plays to win the game. Nor does it change that multiple articles from Penn State writers and PSU posters here have admitted the rule in place at the time it could be ruled a catch. It seems you wanted the refs to win the game for you, sadly that's not the way it works and Penn State had to make play when it mattered and they failed to do so. Stop blaming refs like a child, you should be mad at your secondary Manningham was wide open.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

You lost a game over 10 years ago where even PSU fans and writers have said the call could have went either way. Please stop with the delusion Penn State could have one the game if they made plays which they did not so they lost simple as that

BTW @sshat, the NCAA CFB Rulebook has NEVER changed the tenants of a catch by a receiver where the first part of the body landing after the catch is a "FOOT" - they didn't change the rules regarding that specific situation in 2005, 2007 or any other date, your and the other scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole apologists fans claims NOTWITHSTANDING! Again, the RULE and REQUIREMENT for the SPECIFIC SITUATION IN QUESTION ("One FOOT in") has never been changed! And before you start crying about being called a "troll", you definitely don't have a leg to stand on as being a COMPLETE @SSHOLE at the same time as being FACTUALLY WRONG AND INCORRECT while trying to spin your bull$hit sham position DEFINITELY identifies you as a TROLL.

BTW Champ, it's "won" not "one" - given that the b1g Shiz-hole's balatant cheating regarding this call which occurred with 42 seconds left and accounted for a third of the yards gained on the drive (we won't even talk about the time that was added back on the clock subsequent to this which is the only reason scUM had any time on the clock to run the last play....) and this referine-aided, cheating drive cost PSU a perfect regular season and a shot at the National Championship, you're lame statement says everything one needs to know about your "biases" jack@ss, scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole douche-bag!

 

[thetruth82]

BTW @sshat, the NCAA CFB Rulebook has NEVER changed the tenants of a catch by a receiver where the first part of the body landing after the catch is a "FOOT" - they didn't change the rules regarding that specific situation in 2005, 2007 or any other date, your and the other scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole apologists fans claims NOTWITHSTANDING! Again, the RULE and REQUIREMENT for the SPECIFIC SITUATION IN QUESTION ("One FOOT in") has never been changed! And before you start crying about being called a "troll", you definitely don't have a leg to stand on as being a COMPLETE @SSHOLE at the same time as being FACTUALLY WRONG AND INCORRECT while trying to spin your bull$hit sham position DEFINITELY identifies you as a TROLL.

BTW Champ, it's "won" not "one" - given that the b1g Shiz-hole's balatant cheating regarding this call which occurred with 42 seconds left and accounted for a third of the yards gained on the drive (we won't even talk about the time that was added back on the clock subsequent to this which is the only reason scUM had any time on the clock to run the last play....) and this referine-aided, cheating drive cost PSU a perfect regular season and a shot at the National Championship, you're lame statement says everything one needs to know about your "biases" jack@ss, scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole douche-bag!

Writing in all caps and hurling insults like a child does not change the fact that Penn State didn't make the plays to win the game. Nor does it change that multiple articles from Penn State writers and PSU posters here have admitted the rule in place at the time it could be ruled a catch. It seems you wanted the refs to win the game for you, sadly that's not the way it works and Penn State had to make play when it mattered and they failed to do so. Stop blaming refs like a child, you should be mad at your secondary Manningham was wide open.

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

Writing in all caps and hurling insults like a child does not change the fact that Penn State didn't make the plays to win the game. Nor does it change that multiple articles from Penn State writers and PSU posters here have admitted the rule in place at the time it could be ruled a catch. It seems you wanted the refs to win the game for you, sadly that's not the way it works and Penn State had to make play when it mattered and they failed to do so. Stop blaming refs like a child, you should be mad at your secondary Manningham was wide open.

No dip$hit, just BEING WRONG ON THE FACTS makes you WRONG you blithering scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole, douche-bag MORON! The NCAA CFB Rule as it pertains to a FOOT FIRST LANDING (e.g., "the one foot in rule") has NEVER CHANGED your, and your fellow scUM troll's, absurd nonsense rationalizations and sham-claims NOTWITHSTANDING! Piece of advice, maybe you should have even the slightest remote hint of a clue about the topic you are going to make goofy rationalizations and sham-claims about in defense of your beloved b1g Shiz-hole cheaters!

 

[thetruth82]

OK you don't have any facts at all. You have an opinion that is not shared with most rational people. The only fact is UofM won PSU lost. One team made plays to win (UofM) and one did not (PSU). All they had to do was play defense with 2 seconds left which they did not and Manningham was wide open. Also insults and caps just help to invalidate your opinion which it seems most Penn State fans agree.

 

[Nosoj]

 

[Franklin_Restores_TheTradition]

OK you don't have any facts at all. You have an opinion that is not shared with most rational people. The only fact is UofM won PSU lost. One team made plays to win (UofM) and one did not (PSU). All they had to do was play defense with 2 seconds left which they did not and Manningham was wide open. Also insults and caps just help to invalidate your opinion which it seems most Penn State fans agree.

No dope, your, and the other scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole douce's, claim that the RULE had been changed in regards to FEET FIRST LANDINGS by receivers is completely FALSE -- that means NOT TRUE peckerhead! You're WRONG regarding this claim - that is not an "opinion" that is a FACT! The RULE in regards to THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION - a receiver making a FOOT FIRST LANDING - has NEVER BEEN CHANGED, not in 2005, not in 2007, not EVER - again, you're just FACTUALLY WRONG moron!

Beyond that, you're WRONG in your application of the RULE in regards to situations where the receiver makes a FOOT FIRST LANDING. The RULE unequivocally states the the FIRST FOOT LANDING, including the entire "first step" of that foot must stay completely within the field of play (otherwise known as stay "in-bounds"). The rule goes on to further clarify and state that a "drag" of the toe or heel counts as a "second step", but only a "drag" and the completion of the FIRST STEP counts as the FIRST FOOT LANDING and it must stay entirely in-bounds which Avant's FIRST FOOT LANDING INCLUDING THE FIRST STEP did not stay in-bounds and fully half his first foot was IN FACT out-of-bounds. IOW, you are FACTUALLY WRONG in the application of the ACTUAL RULE that has ALWAYS existed - again, not "my opinion" but rather an absolute FACT you blithering moron who doesn't even understand the diction of the English Language.

 

[john4psu]

BTW...rewatching the highlights of 2002...in OT PSU misses a FG...Michigan is called offsides...PSU re-kicks and makes it...I'm sure if it had been the opposite...as in the refs gave Michigan a second chance at a FG after missing one...you guys would have claimed it was part of the conspiracy.

Was he in fact offsides? We've been called offsides on an onside kick with visual evidence showing PSU wasn't offsides. Or haven't you been paying attention? We have visual evidence that shows the blatant bad calls against Penn State.

 

[john4psu]

OK you don't have any facts at all. You have an opinion that is not shared with most rational people. The only fact is UofM won PSU lost. One team made plays to win (UofM) and one did not (PSU). All they had to do was play defense with 2 seconds left which they did not and Manningham was wide open. Also insults and caps just help to invalidate your opinion which it seems most Penn State fans agree.

One shouldn't have to play for 60:02 on the road especially when it benefits the home team that's trailing and legitimately lost in regulation.

 

[thetruth82]

One shouldn't have to play for 60:02 on the road especially when it benefits the home team that's trailing and legitimately lost in regulation.

Blame Joe he had 2 seconds put back on the clock the drive prior in which PSU scored the go ahead touchdown, it runs both ways. The time that they put on was correct in both situations. UofM made a play to win, PSU didn't to say other wise is blind homerism

 

[thetruth82]

No dope, your, and the other scUM-loving, b1g Shiz-hole douce's, claim that the RULE had been changed in regards to FEET FIRST LANDINGS by receivers is completely FALSE -- that means NOT TRUE peckerhead! You're WRONG regarding this claim - that is not an "opinion" that is a FACT! The RULE in regards to THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION - a receiver making a FOOT FIRST LANDING - has NEVER BEEN CHANGED, not in 2005, not in 2007, not EVER - again, you're just FACTUALLY WRONG moron!

Beyond that, you're WRONG in your application of the RULE in regards to situations where the receiver makes a FOOT FIRST LANDING. The RULE unequivocally states the the FIRST FOOT LANDING, including the entire "first step" of that foot. The rule goes on to state that a "drag" of toe or heel counts as a "second step", but only a "drag" and the completion of the FIRST STEP counts as the FIRST FOOT LANDING and it must stay entirely in-bounds which Avant's FIRST FOOT LANDING INCLUDING THE FIRST STEP did not stay in-bounds and fully half his first foot was IN FACT out-of-bounds. IOW, you are FACTUALLY WRONG in the application of the ACTUAL RULE that has ALWAYS existed - again, not "my opinion" but rather an absolute FACT you blithering moron who doesn't even understand the diction of the English Language.

Speak as an adult please how could anyone take you serious when you address people in that manner. the insults are really bad anyways, "Shiz-hole douce's" is probably the dumbest thing ive ever read. PSU could have made a play to win they did not, that's where the fault lies

 

[richmin3]

Speak as an adult please how could anyone take you serious when you address people in that manner. the insults are really bad anyways, "Shiz-hole douce's" is probably the dumbest thing ive ever read. PSU could have made a play to win they did not, that's where the fault lies

I've been reading your posts. There are some elements of truth in what you say. Having said that, why is it so hard for you to to give us an example where a bad call or calls from the refs in the Michigan and OSU games led to a PSU victory?? Actually, I can answer that one for you. Because there isn't one! And It's not only bad calls, it's the bizarre one's that leave you with no explanation as to how or why they were made. Evan with instant replay! So I enjoy the debate but at the end of the day if you can't answer the question, then there's nothing left for you to post in this thread.

 

[thetruth82]

I've been reading your posts. There are some elements of truth in what you say. Having said that, why is it so hard for you to to give us an example where a bad call or calls from the refs in the Michigan and OSU games led to a PSU victory?? Actually, I can answer that one for you. Because there isn't one! And It's not only bad calls, it's the bizarre one's that leave you with no explanation as to how or why they were made. Evan with instant replay! So I enjoy the debate but at the end of the day if you can't answer the question, then there's nothing left for you to post in this thread.

You're right and really I can't identify an example. I also dont dwell on the 7 loses extensively so that I make up a ridiculous conspiracy theories over 2 instances. examples have been shown previously in this thread , in the same games in question where PSU benefitted from but in the end PSU didn't make the play to win and UofM did. Bad officiating happens to everyone. And frankly UofM has won 12 to PSU 7, there are more examples of UofM wins so a greater chance officiating mistakes affecting the outcome

 

[richmin3]

You're right and really I can't identify an example. I also dont dwell on the 7 loses extensively so that I make up a ridiculous conspiracy theories over 2 instances. examples have been shown previously in this thread , in the same games in question where PSU benefitted from but in the end PSU didn't make the play to win and UofM did. Bad officiating happens to everyone. And frankly UofM has won 12 to PSU 7, there are more examples of UofM wins so a greater chance officiating mistakes affecting the outcome

I can see your point but when you get burned so often it hurts. Video replay which conclusively show major errors not in our favor also reinforces this hurt. Plus the fact that in ALL the instances which you have been made aware of, NOT once did it lead to a PSU win. Last but not least it's public knowledge that Bo and other Big Ten coaches and AD's were pissed that PSU was granted admittance into the conference. It's also no secret we were treated miserably upon our entry into the Big Ten. Based on the above alone, I question whether it is intentional or not. They say these things BAD CALLS that always lead to losses for us against OSU and Michigan tend to average out, but I see a disturbing trend and after 23 years were still waiting for a bad call to go our way leading to a win. So on our part it's not unreasonable or ridiculous to believe in a conspiracy.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Your full of $hit as usual - the wording of the rules changes every year and they list a summary of changes in wording and completely new rules in the front of the rulebook EVERY year. In regards to the REQUIREMENT that your ENTIRE FIRST FOOT LANDING stay completely in-bounds (Both Feet in the NFL), the rule has never varied -- again, your full of $hit as per usual. If any part of your FIRST FOOT LANDING goes out-of-bounds during the act of "landing" (regardless of whether it is a heel-toe motion of running forwards, toe-heel action from moving backwards, your first foot coming back to the playing surface from jumping, etc.... the REQUIREMENT is that your entire first foot stay completely in-bounds during the entire "landing" process and it has ALWAYS been the requirement when the receiver is landing FOOT FIRST you blithering moron!).

What changed in the Rule (and changed in the NFL Rule as well) were situations where a body part OTHER THAN THE FOOT landed first. In those situations, it only mattered where the FIRST CONTACT of that body part was and whether that "FIRST POINT OF CONTACT" was first in-bounds even if portions of the body subsequently went out-of bounds (for instance, a players elbow is the first point of contact with the ground after leaving the ground to catch a pass, but after the elbow strikes, the remainder of the forearm SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds....or a knee hits in-bounds, but the upper-body SUBSEQUENTLY comes down out-of-bounds, etc....) - in these situations, where a NON-FOOT body part makes FIRST CONTACT in-bounds and then any portion of the body SUBSEQUENTLY goes out-of-bounds, it is deemed a catch (hence the saying that many NFL announcers used after the change - "One knee = 2 feet" or "One Elbow = 2 Feet").

The rule was quite clear that the STANDARD had not changed relative to what it ALWAYS has been when the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST!!! Again, in this situation where the RECEIVER was LANDING FEET FIRST, the REQUIREMENT was what it ALWAYS HAD BEEN - specifically, the RECEIVER'S FIRST FOOT LANDING must stay INSIDE THE FIELD OF PLAY through the entire "first step" and the rule goes on to explain that a "dragging of the foot" without a step (e.g., a "toe drag") is considered a "second step".

In the case being discussed, Avant without question was "backpedaling" and landing upon the ground FEET FIRST relative to the CLEAR strictures of the rule. The rule clearly states that the entire "FIRST STEP" of the FIRST FOOT LANDING is the determining factor (e.g., Avant did not "drag" his foot while maintaining the position it landed in-bounds in - e.g., a heel or toe drag - if he had a "drag" counts as a "second step", but contrary to your bull$hit claims, Avant undeniably was "backpedaling" where he was taking STEPS where his toe would hit first followed by his heel and the rule is definitive in situations where the FOOT is the first body part landing that the entire FOOT and STEP must stay in-bounds and the rule ALWAYS has read that way in regards to FOOT FIRST LANDINGS!!!

In your typical horse$hit fashion, you are attempting to reference language which was added to the rule to clarify situations where a BODY PART OTHER THAN THE FOOT MADE FIRST CONTACT WITH THE GROUND AFTER THE RECEIVER LEFT THE GROUND AND CAUGHT THE BALL WHILE OFF THE GROUND! This is not the situation that APPLIED to Avant who was clearly moving backwards ON HIS FEET and the same rule that applies when a receiver is running forward ON HIS FEET apply to the situation -- namely the requirement that the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP remain ENTIRELY within the field of play often also termed "IN BOUNDS" and if any part of the FIRST FOOT LANDING and FIRST STEP contact out-of-bounds stripe, the pass is INCOMPLETE and the rule is quite unequivocal, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, about these FACTS that pertain to the ACTUAL SITUATION, not your made up bull$hit you imbecile!

LOL at this post.

 

[thetruth82]

I can see your point but when you get burned so often it hurts. Video replay which conclusively show major errors not in our favor also reinforces this hurt. Plus the fact that in ALL the instances which you have been made aware of, NOT once did it lead to a PSU win. Last but not least it's public knowledge that Bo and other Big Ten coaches and AD's were pissed that PSU was granted admittance into the conference. It's also no secret we were treated miserably upon our entry into the Big Ten. Based on the above alone, I question whether it is intentional or not. They say these things BAD CALLS that always lead to losses for us against OSU and Michigan tend to average out, but I see a disturbing trend and after 23 years were still waiting for a bad call to go our way leading to a win. So on our part it's not unreasonable or ridiculous to believe in a conspiracy.

See once again there were bad calls In both games in question that positively and negatively effected PSU. You chose to harp on the negative calls and completely ignore the calls that benefitted Penn State. These "BAD CALLS" you said lead to losses (2, but you still have not addressed that calls also positively effected PSU in both games) while disregarding that the game is played on the field that is where the game is won and lost, not by officials. PSU has played at least 100 big ten games and you're talking about 5 games at most. I'll ask this how many games has PSU won in conference due to bad calls? If you say none that would be an example of some heavy homerism